John Hemming MP is in a class of his own. This, I suspect, will not be news to many.
The particular case to which I am referring today is that of expenses. John is claiming via a blog post last week to be a net contributor to the public purse even after you take into account his parliamentary salary.
One of the interesting things to spot is firstly how many MPs earn more from outside parliament than from the tax payer. Then there is a question of how many MPs pay the taxpayer more than the taxpayer pays them. In calculating this it is sensible to take into account the Salary and probably the ACA figures (although you could consider the ACA as expenses), but probably not travel costs although you could include those.
Although I think I fit into this category – I am checking the figures – I am not sure that there will be that many more MPs who are net contributors to the exchequer.
A millionaire long before seeking high office, Hemming’s business interests are substantial. I look forward to seeing the results of his figure checking.
Share:
3 Comments
I can see what John is trying to do here and I think he has a valid point – but equally I don’t think the public is likely to warm to someone who makes a big deal out of being “considerably richer than yow.”
No its not a valid point. I cost nothing because I pay a lot of tax?
If any MP were to use this to defend expenses claims (I cast no aspersions on Hemming), I would simply ask if I can steal from the government so long as I don’t steal more than I pay in tax.
If the answer is no, then its a nonsense.
In fairness to John, I am 99.99% confident that his expense claims will be in the clear and white-as-white.
I don’t like the idea that MPs should be need to rely on private incomes. Neither do I like the idea that MPs should all be lobyists and professional apparatachiks.
John Hemming did actually go and make a shedload of cash, by running succesful business operations, before getting elected to Parliament.
Not many other MPs you can say that about.